I have the following deploy.tf file:
provider "aws" {
region = "us-east-1"
}
provider "aws" {
alias = "us_west_1"
region = "us-west-2"
}
resource "aws_us_east_1" "my_test" {
# provider = "aws.us_east_1"
count = 1
ami = "ami-0820..."
instance_type = "t2.micro"
}
resource "aws_us_west_1" "my_test" {
provider = "aws.us_west_1"
count = 1
ami = "ami-0d74..."
instance_type = "t2.micro"
}
I am trying to use it to deploy 2 servers, one in each region. I keep getting errors like:
aws_us_east_1.narc_test: Provider doesn't support resource: aws_us_east_1
I have tried setting alias's for both provider blocks, and referring to the correct region in a number of different ways. I've read up on multi region support, and some answers suggest this can be accomplished with modules, however, this is a simple test, and I'd like to keep it simple. Is this currently possible?
Yes it can be used to create resources in different regions even inside just one file. There is no need to use modules for your test scenario.
Your error is caused by a typo probably. If you want to launch an ec2 instance the resource you wanna create is aws_instance and not aws_us_west_1 or aws_us_east_1.
Sure enough Terraform does not know this kind of resource since it does simply not exist. Change it to aws_instance and you should be good to go! Additionally you should probably name them differently to avoid double naming using my_test for both resources.
Step 1
Add region alias in the main.tf file where you gonna execute the terraform plan.
provider "aws" {
region = "eu-west-1"
alias = "main"
}
provider "aws" {
region = "us-east-1"
alias = "useast1"
}
Step 2
Add providers block inside your module definition block
module "lambda_edge_rule" {
providers = {
aws = aws.useast1
}
source = "../../../terraform_modules/lambda"
tags = var.tags
}
Step 3
Define "aws" as providers inside your module. ( source = ../../../terraform_modules/lambda")
terraform {
required_providers {
aws = {
source = "hashicorp/aws"
version = ">= 2.7.0"
}
}
}
resource "aws_lambda_function" "lambda" {
function_name = "blablabla"
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
}
Note: Terraform version v1.0.5 as of now.
Related
i have a use case where need help to use for_each to loop through multiple providers( AWS accounts & regions) and this is a module, the TF will be using hub and spoke model.
below is the TF Pseudo code i would like to achieve.
module.tf
---------
app_accounts = [
{ "account" : "53xxxx08", "app_vpc_id" : "vpc-0fxxxxxfec8", "role" : "xxxxxxx", "profile" : "child1"},
{ "account" : "53xxxx08", "app_vpc_id" : "vpc-0fxxxxxfec8", "role" : "xxxxxxx", "profile" : "child2"}
]
below are the provider and resource files, pleas ignore the variables and output files, as its not relevant here
provider.tf
------------
provider "aws" {
for_each = var.app_accounts
alias = "child"
profile = each.value.role
}
here is the main resouce block where i want to multiple child accounts against single master account, so i want to iterate through the loop
resource "aws_route53_vpc_association_authorization" "master" {
provider = aws.master
vpc_id = vpc_id
zone_id = zone_id
}
resource "aws_route53_zone_association" "child" {
provider = aws.child
vpc_id = vpc_id
zone_id = zone_id
}
any idea on how to achieve this, please? thanks in advance.
The typical way to achieve your goal in Terraform is to define a shared module representing the objects that should be present in a single account and then to call that module once for each account, passing a different provider configuration into each.
terraform {
required_providers {
aws = {
source = "hashicorp/aws"
}
}
}
provider "aws" {
alias = "master"
# ...
}
provider "aws" {
alias = "example1"
profile = "example1"
}
module "example1" {
source = "./modules/account"
account = "53xxxx08"
app_vpc_id = "vpc-0fxxxxxfec8"
providers = {
aws = aws.example1
aws.master = aws.master
}
}
provider "aws" {
alias = "example2"
profile = "example2"
}
module "example2" {
source = "./modules/account"
account = "53xxxx08"
app_vpc_id = "vpc-0fxxxxxfec8"
providers = {
aws = aws.example2
aws.master = aws.master
}
}
The ./modules/account directory would then contain the resource blocks describing what should exist in each individual account. For example:
terraform {
required_providers {
aws = {
source = "hashicorp/aws"
configuration_aliases = [ aws, aws.master ]
}
}
}
variable "account" {
type = string
}
variable "app_vpc_id" {
type = string
}
resource "aws_route53_zone" "example" {
# (omitting the provider argument will associate
# with the default provider configuration, which
# is different for each instance of this module)
# ...
}
resource "aws_route53_vpc_association_authorization" "master" {
provider = aws.master
vpc_id = var.app_vpc_id
zone_id = aws_route53_zone.example.id
}
resource "aws_route53_zone_association" "child" {
provider = aws.master
vpc_id = var.app_vpc_id
zone_id = aws_route53_zone.example.id
}
(I'm not sure if you actually intended var.app_vpc_id to be the VPC specified for those zone associations, but my goal here is only to show the general pattern, not to show a fully-working example.)
Using a shared module in this way allows to avoid repeating the definitions for each account separately, and keeps each account-specific setting specified in only one place (either in a provider "aws" block or in a module block).
There is no way to make this more dynamic within the Terraform language itself, but if you expect to be adding and removing accounts regularly and want to make it more systematic then you could use code generation for the root module to mechanically produce the provider and module block for each account, to ensure that they all remain consistent and that you can update them all together in case you need to change the interface of the shared module in a way that will affect all of the calls.
I current have code that I have been using for quiet sometime that calls a custom S3 module. Today I tried to run the same code and I started getting an error regarding the provider.
╷ │ Error: Failed to query available provider packages │ │ Could not
retrieve the list of available versions for provider hashicorp/s3:
provider registry registry.terraform.io does not have a provider named
│ registry.terraform.io/hashicorp/s3 │ │ All modules should specify
their required_providers so that external consumers will get the
correct providers when using a module. To see which modules │ are
currently depending on hashicorp/s3, run the following command: │
terraform providers
Doing some digging seems that terraform is looking for a module registry.terraform.io/hashicorp/s3, which doesn't exist.
So far, I have tried the following things:
Validated that the S3 Resource code meets the standards of the upgrade Hashicorp did to 4.x this year. Plus I have been using it for a couple of months with no issues.
Delete .terraform directory and rerun terraform init (No success same error)
Delete .terraform directory and .terraform.hcl lock and run terraform init -upgrade (No Success)
I have tried to update my provider's file to try to force an upgrade (no Success)
I tried to change the provider to >= current version to pull the latest version with no success
Reading further, it refers to a caching problem of the terraform modules. I tried to run terraform providers lock and received this error.
Error: Could not retrieve providers for locking │ │ Terraform failed
to fetch the requested providers for darwin_amd64 in order to
calculate their checksums: some providers could not be installed: │ -
registry.terraform.io/hashicorp/s3: provider registry
registry.terraform.io does not have a provider named
registry.terraform.io/hashicorp/s3.
Kind of at my wits with what could be wrong. below is a copy of my version.tf which I changed from providers.tf based on another post I was following:
version.tf
# Configure the AWS Provider
provider "aws" {
region = "us-east-1"
use_fips_endpoint = true
}
terraform {
required_providers {
aws = {
source = "hashicorp/aws"
version = ">= 4.9.0"
}
local = {
source = "hashicorp/local"
version = "~> 2.2.1"
}
}
required_version = ">= 1.2.0" #required terraform version
}
S3 Module
I did not include locals, outputs, or variables unless someone thinks we need to see them. As I said before, the module was running correctly until today. Hopefully, this is all you need for the provider's issue. Let me know if other files are needed.
resource "aws_s3_bucket" "buckets" {
count = length(var.bucket_names)
bucket = lower(replace(replace("${var.bucket_names[count.index]}-s3", " ", "-"), "_", "-"))
force_destroy = var.bucket_destroy
tags = local.all_tags
}
# Set Public Access Block for each bucket
resource "aws_s3_bucket_public_access_block" "bucket_public_access_block" {
count = length(var.bucket_names)
bucket = aws_s3_bucket.buckets[count.index].id
block_public_acls = var.bucket_block_public_acls
ignore_public_acls = var.bucket_ignore_public_acls
block_public_policy = var.bucket_block_public_policy
restrict_public_buckets = var.bucket_restrict_public_buckets
}
resource "aws_s3_bucket_acl" "bucket_acl" {
count = length(var.bucket_names)
bucket = aws_s3_bucket.buckets[count.index].id
acl = var.bucket_acl
}
resource "aws_s3_bucket_versioning" "bucket_versioning" {
count = length(var.bucket_names)
bucket = aws_s3_bucket.buckets[count.index].id
versioning_configuration {
status = "Enabled"
}
}
resource "aws_s3_bucket_lifecycle_configuration" "bucket_lifecycle_rule" {
count = length(var.bucket_names)
bucket = aws_s3_bucket.buckets[count.index].id
rule {
id = "${var.bucket_names[count.index]}-lifecycle-${count.index}"
status = "Enabled"
expiration {
days = var.bucket_backup_expiration_days
}
transition {
days = var.bucket_backup_days
storage_class = "GLACIER"
}
}
}
# AWS KMS Key Server Encryption
resource "aws_s3_bucket_server_side_encryption_configuration" "bucket_encryption" {
count = length(var.bucket_names)
bucket = aws_s3_bucket.buckets[count.index].id
rule {
apply_server_side_encryption_by_default {
kms_master_key_id = aws_kms_key.bucket_key[count.index].arn
sse_algorithm = var.bucket_sse
}
}
}
Looking for any other ideas I can use to fix this issue. thank you!!
Although you haven't included it in your question, I'm guessing that somewhere else in this Terraform module you have a block like this:
resource "s3_bucket" "example" {
}
For backward compatibility with modules written for older versions of Terraform, terraform init has some heuristics to guess what provider was intended whenever it encounters a resource that doesn't belong to one of the providers in the module's required_providers block. By default, a resource "belongs to" a provider by matching the prefix of its resource type name -- s3 in this case -- to the local names chosen in the required_providers block.
Given a resource block like the above, terraform init would notice that required_providers doesn't have an entry s3 = { ... } and so will guess that this is an older module trying to use a hypothetical legacy official provider called "s3" (which would now be called hashicorp/s3, because official providers always belong to the hashicorp/ namespace).
The correct name for this resource type is aws_s3_bucket, and so it's important to include the aws_ prefix when you declare a resource of this type:
resource "aws_s3_bucket" "example" {
}
This resource is now by default associated with the provider local name "aws", which does match one of the entries in your required_providers block and so terraform init will see that you intend to use hashicorp/aws to handle this resource.
My colleague and I finally found the problem. Turns out that we had a data call to the S3 bucket. Nothing was wrong with the module but the place I was calling the module had a local.tf action where I was calling s3 in a legacy format see the change below:
WAS
data "s3_bucket" "MyResource" {}
TO
data "aws_s3_bucket" "MyResource" {}
Appreciate the responses from everyone. Resource was the root of the problem but forgot that data is also a resource to check.
I am going through the terraform documentation, and it seems unclear to me. I'm quite new to Terraform so no doubt i'm misunderstanding something here:
https://developer.hashicorp.com/terraform/language/modules/develop/providers
Problem:
My terraform pipeline is returning the following warning:
│
│ on waf-cdn.tf line 9, in module "waf_cdn":
│ 9: aws = aws.useastone
│
│ Module module.waf_cdn does not declare a provider named aws.
│ If you wish to specify a provider configuration for the module, add an entry for aws in the required_providers block within the module.
My root module is calling a child waf module. I understand that i need to configure my provider within my root module. There are 2 files within my root module:
...terraform.tf...
terraform {
backend "s3" {}
required_providers {
aws = {
source = "hashicorp/aws"
version = ">= 4.33.0"
}
random = {
source = "hashicorp/random"
version = "3.1.0"
}
local = {
source = "hashicorp/local"
version = "2.1.0"
}
kubernetes = {
source = "hashicorp/kubernetes"
version = ">= 2.0.1"
}
}
}
...and providers.tf...
provider "aws" {
region = var.region
assume_role {
role_arn = "arn:aws:iam::${var.account_id}:role/${local.role_name}"
}
}
provider "aws" {
region = "us-east-1"
alias = "useastone"
assume_role {
role_arn = "arn:aws:iam::${var.account_id}:role/${local.role_name}"
}
}
provider "aws" {
region = var.region
alias = "master"
assume_role {
role_arn = replace(
"arn:aws:iam::${var.master_account_id}:role/${local.role_name}",
local.app_region,
"master"
)
}
}
When calling the child module, the SCOPE attribute of the waf needs to specify the region as us-east-1 for CLOUDFRONT as it is a global service in AWS. Therefore, i need to pass the useastone provider when calling the child waf module as seen below:
module "waf_cdn" {
source = "../modules/qa-aws-waf-common"
name = "${local.waf_prefix}-cdn"
logging_arn = aws_kinesis_firehose_delivery_stream.log_stream_cdn.arn
scope = "CLOUDFRONT"
tags = merge(module.tags.tags, { name = "${local.name_prefix}-qa-waf-cdn" })
providers = {
aws = aws.useastone
}
}
With this code i'm getting the error show above.
I'm banging my head against the documentation here so any help guys would be really appreciated.
Here's hoping, thanks!
As per the documentation you linked, here is the passage you are interested in [1]:
Additional provider configurations (those with the alias argument set) are never inherited automatically by child modules, and so must always be passed explicitly using the providers map.
Since that is the case, you need to define the provider(s) on the module level as well:
terraform {
required_providers {
aws = {
source = "hashicorp/aws"
version = ">= 4.33.0"
configuration_aliases = [ aws.useastone ]
}
}
}
That would probably be an additional providers.tf file in ../modules/qa-aws-waf-common.
[1] https://developer.hashicorp.com/terraform/language/modules/develop/providers#passing-providers-explicitly
I'm getting the following error when trying to initially plan or apply a resource that is using the data values from the AWS environment to a count.
$ terraform plan
Refreshing Terraform state in-memory prior to plan...
The refreshed state will be used to calculate this plan, but will not be
persisted to local or remote state storage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Error: Invalid count argument
on main.tf line 24, in resource "aws_efs_mount_target" "target":
24: count = length(data.aws_subnet_ids.subnets.ids)
The "count" value depends on resource attributes that cannot be determined
until apply, so Terraform cannot predict how many instances will be created.
To work around this, use the -target argument to first apply only the
resources that the count depends on.
$ terraform --version
Terraform v0.12.9
+ provider.aws v2.30.0
I tried using the target option but doesn't seem to work on data type.
$ terraform apply -target aws_subnet_ids.subnets
Apply complete! Resources: 0 added, 0 changed, 0 destroyed.
The only solution I found that works is:
remove the resource
apply the project
add the resource back
apply again
Here is a terraform config I created for testing.
provider "aws" {
version = "~> 2.0"
}
locals {
project_id = "it_broke_like_3_collar_watch"
}
terraform {
required_version = ">= 0.12"
}
resource aws_default_vpc default {
}
data aws_subnet_ids subnets {
vpc_id = aws_default_vpc.default.id
}
resource aws_efs_file_system efs {
creation_token = local.project_id
encrypted = true
}
resource aws_efs_mount_target target {
depends_on = [ aws_efs_file_system.efs ]
count = length(data.aws_subnet_ids.subnets.ids)
file_system_id = aws_efs_file_system.efs.id
subnet_id = tolist(data.aws_subnet_ids.subnets.ids)[count.index]
}
Finally figured out the answer after researching the answer by Dude0001.
Short Answer. Use the aws_vpc data source with the default argument instead of the aws_default_vpc resource. Here is the working sample with comments on the changes.
locals {
project_id = "it_broke_like_3_collar_watch"
}
terraform {
required_version = ">= 0.12"
}
// Delete this --> resource aws_default_vpc default {}
// Add this
data aws_vpc default {
default = true
}
data "aws_subnet_ids" "subnets" {
// Update this from aws_default_vpc.default.id
vpc_id = "${data.aws_vpc.default.id}"
}
resource aws_efs_file_system efs {
creation_token = local.project_id
encrypted = true
}
resource aws_efs_mount_target target {
depends_on = [ aws_efs_file_system.efs ]
count = length(data.aws_subnet_ids.subnets.ids)
file_system_id = aws_efs_file_system.efs.id
subnet_id = tolist(data.aws_subnet_ids.subnets.ids)[count.index]
}
What I couldn't figure out was why my work around of removing aws_efs_mount_target on the first apply worked. It's because after the first apply the aws_default_vpc was loaded into the state file.
So an alternate solution without making change to the original tf file would be to use the target option on the first apply:
$ terraform apply --target aws_default_vpc.default
However, I don't like this as it requires a special case on first deployment which is pretty unique for the terraform deployments I've worked with.
The aws_default_vpc isn't a resource TF can create or destroy. It is the default VPC for your account in each region that AWS creates automatically for you that is protected from being destroyed. You can only (and need to) adopt it in to management and your TF state. This will allow you to begin managing and to inspect when you run plan or apply. Otherwise, TF doesn't know what the resource is or what state it is in, and it cannot create a new one for you as it s a special type of protected resource as described above.
With that said, go get the default VPC id from the correct region you are deploying in your account. Then import it into your TF state. It should then be able to inspect and count the number of subnets.
For example
terraform import aws_default_vpc.default vpc-xxxxxx
https://www.terraform.io/docs/providers/aws/r/default_vpc.html
Using the data element for this looks a little odd to me as well. Can you change your TF script to get the count directly through the aws_default_vpc resource?
I have a module that defines a provider as follows
provider "aws" {
region = "${var.region}"
shared_credentials_file = "${module.global_variables.shared_credentials_file}"
profile = "${var.profile}"
}
and an EC instance as follows
resource "aws_instance" "node" {
ami = "${lookup(var.ami, var.region)}"
key_name = "ib-us-east-2-production"
instance_type = "${var.instance_type}"
count = "${var.count}"
security_groups = "${var.security_groups}"
tags {
Name = "${var.name}"
}
root_block_device {
volume_size = 100
}
In the terraform script that calls this module, I would now like to create an ELB and attach it point it to the instance with something along the lines of
resource "aws_elb" "node_elb" {
name = "${var.name}-elb"
.........
However terraform keeps prompting me for the aws region that is already defined in the module. The only way around this is to copy the provider block into the file calling the module. Is there a cleaner way to approach this?
The only way around this is to copy the provider block into the file calling the module.
The provider block should actually be in your file calling the module and you can remove it from your module.
From the docs:
For convenience in simple configurations, a child module automatically inherits default (un-aliased) provider configurations from its parent. This means that explicit provider blocks appear only in the root module, and downstream modules can simply declare resources for that provider and have them automatically associated with the root provider configurations.
https://www.terraform.io/docs/configuration/modules.html#implicit-provider-inheritance